> An extensive study by The University of North Carolina put cell
    > phone usage far down the list of distractions that take driver's
    > attention away from the road.
    > http://www.hsrc.unc.edu/pressrelease...rks_phase2.htm

Women who put on makeup while driving down the highway
are much worse than cell phone usage, I will agree. But both
activities are dangerous and should be stopped.


Casey

    > Some European cities/countries have banned the use of cell
    > phones while driving. Anyone want to mention specific localities?

This is amusing. Some people assumed I asked this question
because I wanted to use a cell phone while driving. Not true.
I asked because I was curious about European laws. I think
cell phone usage while driving should be banned in Europe and
the USA. Don't assume anything.


Casey

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 22:50:42 GMT, "Casey" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >This is amusing. Some people assumed I asked this question
    >because I wanted to use a cell phone while driving. Not true.
    >I asked because I was curious about European laws. I think
    >cell phone usage while driving should be banned in Europe and
    >the USA. Don't assume anything.

Don't assume, indeed. Collect the data and make an intelligent
decision. Based on the data available, it makes sense to ban
conversation among the occupants of a car, eating and drinking and
adjusting the radio or the climate control as well as cell phones.

And smoking is not far behind! In fact (anecdotally), I've known two
persons who have run off the road chasing a lit ciggy about the car.
That (and the obvious health risks) should be plenty of evidence, at
least in this forum.

Gordon

"Casey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > > > Some European cities/countries have banned the use of cell
    > > > phones while driving. Anyone want to mention specific localities?
    > >
    > > any country that has any sense.
    > > Why do you wish to put someone's life at risk [1] for the sake of
    > > a small amount of convenience? What did you do before you had
    > > the phone? Stop at every coin-box?
    > I think you and I are in violent agreement. I think the USA
    > should ban the use of cell phones while driving. I was just
    > curious about Europe.
    > Casey
We call them Mobile phones:-)
Derek.

Gordon Forbess <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Don't assume, indeed. Collect the data and make an intelligent
    > decision. Based on the data available, it makes sense to ban
    > conversation among the occupants of a car, eating and drinking and
    > adjusting the radio or the climate control as well as cell phones.

When you're conversing with a passenger, they can sense when you need to
give more attention to the road and will stop bothering you during those
periods.

I've experienced the contrary myself - talking on a cell phone while
driving, people will say things that I know need some thought and attention,
and I try to come up with something useful to say in response while I'm
focusing on a traffic maneuver, and I can sense myself becoming distractegd.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu

In message <[email protected] >, Casey
<[email protected]> writes
    >Some European cities/countries have banned the use of cell
    >phones while driving. Anyone want to mention specific localities?

Ireland. I was on holiday in Dublin two years ago when their new law
came into effect, which makes it not only illegal for drivers to use a
mobile phone (or any other kind of 2-way communications device), but to
have one switched on and on their person -- so it's OK to have a mobile
phone on the passenger seat, but not in your pocket. There was some
comment about the fact that the law also applies to police and ambulance
drivers...

--
Arwel Parry
http://www.cartref.demon.co.uk/

Miguel Cruz wrote:
    >
    > Gordon Forbess <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > Don't assume, indeed. Collect the data and make an intelligent
    > > decision. Based on the data available, it makes sense to ban
    > > conversation among the occupants of a car, eating and drinking and
    > > adjusting the radio or the climate control as well as cell phones.
    >
    > When you're conversing with a passenger, they can sense when you need to
    > give more attention to the road and will stop bothering you during those
    > periods.

Not my sister.

Barbara

"Casey" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > cities/countries have banned the use of cell phones
    > while driving. Anyone want to mention specific localities?

I don't know what laws have been enacted in San Francisco or the state
that surrounds us but I do know that many bars, restaurants, stores,
and other businesses have banned their use on the premises. Such signs
at entrances seem to be greater in number each day.

I just love it when I see someone driving on a Yuppiefon and I toot
the horn and they jump and look around with "What'd I do?" on their
faces. I hope to scare them into cessation of use.

As with others, I've seen many red lights run and pedestrians narrowly
missed by Yuppiefon drivers. Yes, it happens with non-users, too, but
not with such great frequency in my line of sight.

It hasn't yet been mentioned that pedestrians on Yuppiefons are also
quite hazardous to pedestrians as well as drivers.

The other day a woman sitting behind me was speaking to me. Although I
heard her voice, I tuned her out because I tought she was on a
Yuppiefon.
__________________________________________________ _______________
ICONO CLAST: A San Franciscan in San Rafael - IClast at SFbay Net

"Gordon Forbess" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 23:25:57 +0200, "tim"
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >But as the report itself suggests that mobile phone use is only 1.5% of
    > >distractions, it seems to be point towards the claim that mobile phone use is
    > >more distracting that othe 'distractions' which is exactly why it should be
    > >banned.
    > I don't think that's the conclusion most people who read it are
    > making. Some examples:
    > http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansas...ar/6474889.htm
    > http://www.jsonline.com/news/ozwash/aug03/160726.asp
    > http://www.freep.com/news/driving/helms7_20030807.htm
    > http://www.psychologytoday.com/htdoc...808-000001.asp
    > Gordon

But these are reports from the muppet press who do nothing more
than reprint the press release. The conclusion that 'conversations'
is more distracting that 'mobiles' is the one that the author of the
report appears to want and no doubt the press release said just that.
Do you really think that media read a 100 page technical report and
reach their own conclusions?

None of the media will have read the report to see that what was
actually said was the the *quantity* of conversational distraction is
greater than the *quantity* of mobile distraction (by a factor of 30).
IMHO the suggestion that a 'conversational' distraction is equal to a
'mobile' distraction in causing an accident is laughable (I would think
a factor of 1 to 1000 to be about right) but the report is completely
silent on this and no-one in the media will notice.

Tim

"Derek F" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > "Casey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > > > Some European cities/countries have banned the use of cell
    > > > > phones while driving. Anyone want to mention specific localities?
    > > >
    > > > any country that has any sense.
    > > > Why do you wish to put someone's life at risk [1] for the sake of
    > > > a small amount of convenience? What did you do before you had
    > > > the phone? Stop at every coin-box?
    > >
    > > I think you and I are in violent agreement. I think the USA
    > > should ban the use of cell phones while driving. I was just
    > > curious about Europe.
    > >
    > >
    > > Casey
    > >
    > >
    > We call them Mobile phones:-)

No, they are 'Handies' and they think it's an English word :-o

I see perfectly translated signs which still include the word Handy
and the Brits all look at each other and say "what's a handy".

Tim

    > Derek.

"Gordon Forbess" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 22:50:42 GMT, "Casey" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >This is amusing. Some people assumed I asked this question
    > >because I wanted to use a cell phone while driving. Not true.
    > >I asked because I was curious about European laws. I think
    > >cell phone usage while driving should be banned in Europe and
    > >the USA. Don't assume anything.
    > Don't assume, indeed. Collect the data and make an intelligent
    > decision.

Fine where is this data?

Counting incedents of 'distraction' is meaningless (its as useful
as asking someone how many 10 cent coins they have in their
pocket and using this as an indicator of their wealth.)
What is required is an evaluatiuon of the '*effects* of the distraction'.

    > Based on the data available, it makes sense to ban
    > conversation among the occupants of a car,

No it does not. The data you have posted says that there are
more conversation, it does not say that more accidents are caused
by this conversation.

Do you have the meaningful data required or just this hocus
pocus stuff used (scientifically completely incorrectly) to convey
the result that the author wishes to convey?

    > eating and drinking and

these are frowned upon by all of us as well, it's just a bit harder
to spot on the road.

Tim

    > adjusting the radio or the climate control as well as cell phones.
    > And smoking is not far behind! In fact (anecdotally), I've known two
    > persons who have run off the road chasing a lit ciggy about the car.
    > That (and the obvious health risks) should be plenty of evidence, at
    > least in this forum.
    > Gordon

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 13:22:01 +0200, "tim"
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >Fine where is this data?

From: http://www.hsrc.unc.edu/pressrelease/background.htm

Below is a listing of driver "attention status" for all crashes, based
on weighted data from the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration's Crashworthiness Data System. Listed next to the
percentages are the 95% confidence intervals.

Attentive 48.6% (plus or minus 5.4%)
Distracted 8.3% (plus or minus 1.2%)
Looked but did not see 5.4% (plus or minus 1.4%)
Sleepy or fell asleep 1.8% (plus or minus 0.8%)
Unknown/no driver 35.9% (plus or minus 5.5%)

Below is a distribution of distracting activities. Listed next to the
percentages are the 95% confidence intervals.

Outside person, object, or event 29.4% (plus or minus 4.7%)
Adjusting radio/cassette/CD 11.4% (plus or minus 7.2%)
Other occupant 10.9% (plus or minus 3.3%)
Moving object in vehicle 4.3% (plus or minus 3.2%)
Other device/object 2.9% (plus or minus 1.6%)
Adjusting vehicle/climate controls 2.8% (plus or minus 1.1%)
Eating and/or drinking 1.7% (plus or minus 0.6%)
Using/dialing cell phone 1.5% (plus or minus 0.9%)
Smoking related 0.9% (plus or minus 0.4%)
Other distractions 25.6% (plus or minus 6.0%)
Unknown distraction 8.6% (plus or minus 5.3%)

My understanding of these two tables is as follows:

Of the over 32,000 damaged vehicles studied, the cause of the crash
was a "distracted" driver in 8.3% of the crashes. Of this 8.3%, the
second table lists the determined causes of the distractions. Note
the relative position of "Using/dialing cell phone" in this ranking.
I believe that the data is quite clear.

    >Counting incedents of 'distraction' is meaningless (its as useful
    >as asking someone how many 10 cent coins they have in their
    >pocket and using this as an indicator of their wealth.)
    >What is required is an evaluatiuon of the '*effects* of the distraction'.

You must be looking only at Part II of the study. Part I is the study
of vehicles that were involved in crashes and severely damaged.

    >> Based on the data available, it makes sense to ban
    >> conversation among the occupants of a car,
    >No it does not. The data you have posted says that there are
    >more conversation, it does not say that more accidents are caused
    >by this conversation.

Of course that's exactly what it says. This data quite clearly shows
a number of activities have distracted a driver more often than cell
phones and subsequently caused an accident.

Gordon

    > Outside person, object, or event 29.4% (plus or minus 4.7%)
    > Adjusting radio/cassette/CD 11.4% (plus or minus 7.2%)
    > Other occupant 10.9% (plus or minus 3.3%)
    > Moving object in vehicle 4.3% (plus or minus 3.2%)
    > Other device/object 2.9% (plus or minus 1.6%)
    > Adjusting vehicle/climate controls 2.8% (plus or minus 1.1%)
    > Eating and/or drinking 1.7% (plus or minus 0.6%)
    > Using/dialing cell phone 1.5% (plus or minus 0.9%)
    > Smoking related 0.9% (plus or minus 0.4%)
    > Other distractions 25.6% (plus or minus 6.0%)
    > Unknown distraction 8.6% (plus or minus 5.3%)
    > My understanding of these two tables is as follows:
    > Of the over 32,000 damaged vehicles studied, the cause of the crash
    > was a "distracted" driver in 8.3% of the crashes. Of this 8.3%, the
    > second table lists the determined causes of the distractions. Note
    > the relative position of "Using/dialing cell phone" in this ranking.
    > I believe that the data is quite clear.

You are making a huge assumption. You assume that "Using/dialing
cell phone" includes the conversation. That is not possible, as a
conversation on a cell phone would be similar to the "Outside person,
object, or event" category, or at the very least similar to the "Other
occupant" category. "Using/dialing cell phone" therefore only includes
the physical handling of the device. The data is skewed.


Casey

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 17:55:50 GMT, "Casey" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >You are making a huge assumption. You assume that "Using/dialing
    >cell phone" includes the conversation. That is not possible, as a
    >conversation on a cell phone would be similar to the "Outside person,
    >object, or event" category, or at the very least similar to the "Other
    >occupant" category. "Using/dialing cell phone" therefore only includes
    >the physical handling of the device.

Wrong.

Reference pages 41 & 42 of the full report, Part I. The data
collection forms used to evaluate the 32,000+ vehicles damaged have
two distinct categories for cell phones:

(05) While talking or listening to cellular phone.
(06) While dialing cellular phone.

These are combined into "Using/dialing cellular phone" in Part I of
the study.

And, in Part II of the study, you can see here:
http://www.hsrc.unc.edu/pressrelease...und_phase2.htm that
"Talking on a cell phone", "Answering cell phone", and "Dialing cell
phone" are combined to achieve the percentage of driving time used by
the subjects performing cell phone tasks.

    >The data is skewed.

I would think in a study of this sort, some skewing is inevitable,
however the results are expressed with the appropriate ranges to
achieve a 95% confidence interval.

Gordon

In article <[email protected] >,
[email protected] says...
    > Some European cities/countries have banned the use of cell
    > phones while driving. Anyone want to mention specific localities?
    >
    >
NL for sure, most scandinavian countries as well.

Even if it's not specifically forbidden they can still nail you for
"Driving dangerously"

--
Met vriendelijke groeten/Best regards
Jeroen Wijnands
http://spam.pagina.nl